(This text can be considered version 0.1 (alpha). I plan to add some screenshots in the future and I would like some feedback on topics you think are unclear or debatable. Please also inform me about grammar or how I can improve the text in general as english isn't my first language.)
11 mistakes people make when designing singleplayer/co-op maps with a story, similar to blizzard campaign maps
Have no story
If your map has no narrative elements (text, transmissions, cinematics or very good doodad placement) It's not a scenario. It's just an arcade map with gameplay, which may be fine if that's what you want, but then this list you are currently reading isn't for you. Your map should always have an introduction that explains who you are (playing with), who is your opponent/ally and why you are on this map. The easiest way to do that is to write some text on the loading screen. If you need to leave out information deliberately then make it clear to the player that information is being left out deliberately. Always add objectives. See EivindL' campaign tutorial about how to write your own story.
Make the level design up as they go
often when it's your first times with the editor you'll play around with some features. You'll add some units here, some triggers there, also add some terrain. It's not hard to make a map. What differentiates good maps from any other map is the thought process that went in before doing a single thing with the editor. Two ways have been established when designing a map: First is to start with a story and then build gameplay around that Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos has an excellent story and the gameplay also very good but the maps are very similar). Second is to come up with an idea for a map and then make up a story around that (Example: Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Excellent level design with unique elements for each map, but story is lacking focus).
Bonus: If you design a campaign (multi-map project) you should first try to find out where your story is starting and ending and mark a few key moments. Also make sure you know what makes the gameplay of each map unique.
Make terrain first, gameplay later
Of course the terrain is an integral part of the level design, but at the early stage you don't need more than basic blocking (cliffs, and rarely some textures/doodads for guidance). It's important to make the map playable as quickly as possible so you can test your idea, because not every idea that is good on paper feels good when playing. Concentrating on the gameplay without thinking about the terrain allows you to make the necessary changes more quickly (iteratively). Work on the terrain and cinematics when you are finished with the gameplay. Please don't use other peoples' maps without their consent. Please don't use multiplayer maps for scenarios.
Force a specific style of play
Naturally, your map is designed with a specific gameplay idea you want the player to experience. If you focus too much on this idea the gameplay can become very narrow-minded, tutorial-like or misunderstood. Leave some margin for player errors and design your abilities and the level as open as possible. Keep in mind that once a player puts his hands on your map its THEIR map (playfield). Think of your map as LEGO; you design the rules but a player has to choose which suits him best. Just make sure that all options are equally fun. This does not mean that your map should be as open as Skyrim. Even linear missions like Piercing the Shroud have some secret rooms, give the player multiple types of units and abilities and some optional objectives.
Mix tilesets/doodads that don't fit
If you look at any tileset you will realize that is always has a color palette with a limited range of colors and these colors blend together perfectly. Because of that some people feel the need to add more variation; but please, only do that if you are experienced with the textures and doodads you want to use. Don't be that person that mixes ice and fiery craters on a jungle level. Study blizzard maps. Look at the textures and doodads, their purpose and how they were combined to create a natural/manmade look and how each area of a map varies from one another without breaking the color palette. When you have understood the basis you can explore more combinations. In the end it's very important to give each area of your map a distinguishable look, if only to make (camera) navigation around the map more easily.
Make the map too big
This is a problem for people who don't plan enough. Often they choose a specific map size and stick to it throughout development without proper testing if there is too much space. Unecessarilly big maps lead to a lot of downtime with the player experiencing boring/uneventful sections, the AI taking too long to attack a player's base or general pathing problems that have to be fixed. Also the map takes longer than necessary to load. Sometimes maps are too small: Despite the demand for action packed games that keep you on your edge all the time, it is good to have a few moments where players can relax, enjoy the environment or build some tension for an upcoming event. Thankfully the Starcraft 2 editor has a feature to alter the map size even after creating the map.
Remove map border
I don't really understand why some people do this but they increase the playable area to the full size of the map. This leads to players seeing beyond painted terrain, so it destroys immersion.
Make cinematics unskippable
It's much easier to make cinematics skippable compared to Warcraft 3. You only need the "skip this trigger if ESC is pressed" trigger and then another trigger that will clean up the scene, which should be triggered anyway even if the cinematic is played completely. Unskippable cinematics can become frustrating if the player needs to replay a section of the map or if he simply choses to ignore it.
Make cinematics too long
As a gameplay-comes-first guy I prefer maps with a few short cinematics, especially since most cinematics just show a bunch of guys standing around and talking to each other. The Starcraft 2 editor has only limited cinematic capabilities, but you can still order units around, have some basic animations and add a lot special effects and camera movement and even add voice-over. In my opinion you should add these features often while reducing the amount of dialogue as much as possible. As a thumb rule I create map intros and outros with 2-3 minutes in length and interludes with 1-2 minutes. In some rare cases (campaign outro), the cinematic may be as long as 5 minutes.
Make the map too difficult
Making a map very difficulty simply means that the people who tested it either were very good players or (unintentionally) ignored problems with the map. When I design a map the difficulty I play it in usually becomes the hardest difficulty level because I know all the ins and outs of the map. From there on I simply reduce the number of enemies/waves/times. Adding more difficulties needs more testing but I do believe it's best to provide multiple difficulty levels to cater to as many players as possible. If the high difficulty of your map is an actual selling point then it should still be fair. Always let the player understand his mistakes or give him the chance to come back from heavy blow (health-pickups/auto-regenerative health etc.). Add hints on how to overcome a hard challenge before or while the player encounters it.
Spend more time promoting than designing
I used to have this rule of not announcing a project until it was around 50% complete. Then I could be sure that the project was completeable in the foreseeable future and it wouldn't feel like an eternity to other users. Some people create forum threads when they haven't even started a project and only gathered some ideas. Some of these threads are actually quite impressive as the information is presented really well, but it often seems like the people who do this are more interested in the feedback than in the actualy project. Don't be that person that works on a project depending on the feedback he gets. Work on a project because you believe YOU will have fun with it.
I like this. SC2 needs more scenario maps. The only one I disagree with is difficulty. If it's a one-off scenario with no followup missions, then I'm much more likely to have fun by being fully challenged.
Very interesting read, and a great tutorial for aspiring campaign mappers. I remember I used to want to make a campaign, but I decided not to, as the only real reason I'd do it is to make new units & try out different mission elements, rather than tell a story.
On map difficulty, it could go the other way around too, couldn't it? If a map is too easy, players are likely not going to like it either. Also, I've seen many maps that have cheap, usually instant-defeat tricks pulled on you, like "your hero dies when you walk through this normal-looking gate". That's not challenging, it's frustrating. I think the difference between those two should be noted down too.
When I wrote that I thought of that protoss indoor mission in Starcraft 1 where you start with Tassadard and two Zealots. There are a couple of rooms where infested terran spawn and can cripple your army unless you sacrifice a unit/hallucination, but you can't know that/when these infested will appear unless you have encountered them. This lead to a lot of saving and loading. Mass Recall made it worse by making the map very dark.
Other example from a user made map where you control a squad but if you are not exremely careful you lose too much HP with no chance to regain it you'll not survive later in the map.
If I really had to decide between Too Hard and Too Easy I would always go for Too Easy. At least that way you can experience the content, while Too Hard may just be impossible to beat.
But I see (almost) no reason to not offer multiple dificulty Levels to as many people as possible enjoy the map.
That difficulty thing was interesting. I always threw my own experience as the normal setting, but I can see your argument for hard. But as you say in your reply, multiple settings is definitely a good idea, and I've seen it reflected in the ratings of maps. I get better ratings when I have difficulty settings. Though i find it funny that someone will always complain about the hardest difficulty when there are easier ones to choose.
Excellent post. I like this topic. I would like to share some thoughts for it. When it comes to Base defense maps it would be interesting how many ways you could go about to force that perspective and style of play. I usually tend to make these Base defense maps like a Chess games where you must keep the Hero alive to the end otherwise you loss. They get the impossible feeling because how easy it is to loss your hero and how difficult the attack waves but its not hard at all defending once you effectively know how remember chess game is about what you have and where you have it and I really stress this when it come to the End game Boss because the only certain Hero attacks will work because it's invincible to most damage.
Now about the Base defense map I like to make the map little bit bigger then it needs to be so that the spawning attacking units can spawn outside your box of vision on the map so they just don't appear out of no where on screen. For the Base defense map(picture example) I like to have the feeling that you are immersed in the base to the point you get the feeling that the base has hidden mystery's to be uncovered for example hidden minerals and/or gas along with other hidden base stuff that can be done.
When it comes to difficulty it really is within your mind how you perceive how difficult you think it is. In reality its easy but difficult enough that is forces you to play the scenario. The factor of Easy and Hard could just be an 120 second upgrade away. Think about it. I leave it at that for now.
Your map should always have an introduction that explains who you are (playing with), who is your opponent/ally and why you are on this map. The easiest way to do that is to write some text on the loading screen. If you need to leave out information deliberately then make it clear to the player that information is being left out deliberately. Always add objectives. See EivindL' campaign tutorial about how to write your own story.
Although I agree that loading screen text is convenient, I'm too much a fan of show, don't tell to personally recommend it. I made it a deliberate point not to use it, as I rarely feel like reading a wall of text (and yes, these things are often walls). It's not that I hate reading. I mean, I am a student, so I read practically every day. But having characters speak is better, I think, and having them do stuff is even better.
often when it's your first times with the editor you'll play around with some features. You'll add some units here, some triggers there, also add some terrain. It's not hard to make a map. What differentiates good maps from any other map is the thought process that went in before doing a single thing with the editor.
I agree completely. Each of my campaigns have been more planned than the one before, and always better because of it.
Of course the terrain is an integral part of the level design, but at the early stage you don't need more than basic blocking (cliffs, and rarely some textures/doodads for guidance). It's important to make the map playable as quickly as possible so you can test your idea, because not every idea that is good on paper feels good when playing. Concentrating on the gameplay without thinking about the terrain allows you to make the necessary changes more quickly (iteratively). Work on the terrain and cinematics when you are finished with the gameplay. Please don't use other peoples' maps without their consent. Please don't use multiplayer maps for scenarios.
I kinda both agree and disagree with this. I personally like to make a lot of terrain before I finish, though I sometimes finish the first part completely and then begin with an opening cinematic, as I find this more inspiring. I certainly see your logic, though, as I've fallen for that trap myself (realizing that something might not work as well as I had planned). Still, I always pull through some way.
I don't really understand why some people do this but they increase the playable area to the full size of the map. This leads to players seeing beyond painted terrain, so it destroys immersion.
SO true! Don't show me the black edge! It looks ridiculous!
As a gameplay-comes-first guy I prefer maps with a few short cinematics, especially since most cinematics just show a bunch of guys standing around and talking to each other. The Starcraft 2 editor has only limited cinematic capabilities, but you can still order units around, have some basic animations and add a lot special effects and camera movement and even add voice-over. In my opinion you should add these features often while reducing the amount of dialogue as much as possible. As a thumb rule I create map intros and outros with 2-3 minutes in length and interludes with 1-2 minutes. In some rare cases (campaign outro), the cinematic may be as long as 5 minutes.
This is dependent on quality, I guess. The most talented mapmakers can easily get away with creating very long cinematics, I feel.
I used to have this rule of not announcing a project until it was around 50% complete. Then I could be sure that the project was completeable in the foreseeable future and it wouldn't feel like an eternity to other users. Some people create forum threads when they haven't even started a project and only gathered some ideas. Some of these threads are actually quite impressive as the information is presented really well, but it often seems like the people who do this are more interested in the feedback than in the actualy project. Don't be that person that works on a project depending on the feedback he gets. Work on a project because you believe YOU will have fun with it.
Yes! Yes! YES! Some people are too ambitious! I mean, it's nice that they're passionate, and I would never kick someone for that, but every so often a "4th race idea" thread shows up somewhere (not necessarily this site), and I wanna ask, "What's the point?" These threads are always so incredibly long, and never amount to anything. Map-making is hard and difficult work, and some people seriously underestimate that. It's good that people have ideas. But you can't play an idea. The best campaign makers actually carry them out.
I'd like to add one more mistake, and it's one I've made in the past and that could be really useful advice. And that is -
Cluttering your map with too much doodads
In a point of view, it's understandable you don't want to make your terrain all empty, and you also want to add in some immersion. Just painted terrain can be truly be boring as well as too open areas and that're virtually with little to offer can ruin the experience. But then you get to have the other extreme in which you have to shove in just too many doodads like too many grass and trees for forests, or too many rocks for mountains, or custom 'Zerus' cliffs to cover all the cliffs, and suddenly your terrain becomes a mess. Looking at Blizzard's maps, namely those for the campaign, you'll naturally see that they're often open, but not as empty and filled with interesting doodads as well. The multiplayer/match maps are empty because you must spare since people will be fighting with 200/200, but even a scenario map can make a big mistake when you shove in too much doodads in a single area, unless you're planning a boss fight or an installation map - It can be complicated and you can lose yourself around, as well as it'll harm fps rate. Simply put, it's a matter of planning early and eventually learning, as well. If you made that mistake, like I did, it's understandable and eventually you'll find the balance needed between space and detail.
If you have a big project it is always a good idea to separate content into mods. It makes file and update organization a little harder. It pays of by being scalable in long term
Write too much story first and then start designing
Finishing one aspect of campaign making 100% and then moving on to the next (write story 100% -> paint maps 100% -> play-test 100% etc) will guarantee failure. Some people have the mental stamina to pull through an entire multi level project so this does not apply to everyone.
So: Start with the smallest map size, present dialog using debugger, add units and basic gameplay. Every time you leave the campaign to rest/get bored/have real life events it will be 100% completed. The quality of it might not be so good though :) Then improve where you feel like improving.
Think of Blizzard as a person
Assuming that you can put together a multi level campaign with the Blizzard campaigns as a quality baseline is nuts. Focus, descope, prioritize. You are not 50 people. You are 1.
No comments
Always comment your code and scripts. If you use the scripting tools, put comments in the comment boxes (each trigger, function has one).
No Definition of Done
When is your campaign completed? When people in forums raise you to the skies? When you get a Blizzard job? When people pay money to you for your efforts? When you have at minimum 10 levels of Blizzard quality campaigns?
Not having a clear end-point will drain your resources.
Continue even though you know you are done
You think its quite perfect... but you can always make it more perfect!!! Leave things which are done behind.
Plan for huge item catalogs
Does your game harbor characters, items, potions and upgrades? Each such item will have: images, strings, attributes, custom scripts and data properties, game balancing issues, regression issues. Creating large catalogs of repetitive content is really hard, as in hard and gruesome repetitive work. Keep it simple.
Use Blizzards style of difficulty as baseline
The traditional blizzard way of doing difficulty is to have 5-7 fixed difficulty levels. This makes it tedious to adjust difficulty later on. If you want to raise difficulty across the board in all your levels, do you really want to open all those map files and change the parameters to those functions? Better to keep it in a mod.
(This text can be considered version 0.1 (alpha). I plan to add some screenshots in the future and I would like some feedback on topics you think are unclear or debatable. Please also inform me about grammar or how I can improve the text in general as english isn't my first language.)
11 mistakes people make when designing singleplayer/co-op maps with a story, similar to blizzard campaign maps
Have no story
If your map has no narrative elements (text, transmissions, cinematics or very good doodad placement) It's not a scenario. It's just an arcade map with gameplay, which may be fine if that's what you want, but then this list you are currently reading isn't for you. Your map should always have an introduction that explains who you are (playing with), who is your opponent/ally and why you are on this map. The easiest way to do that is to write some text on the loading screen. If you need to leave out information deliberately then make it clear to the player that information is being left out deliberately. Always add objectives. See EivindL' campaign tutorial about how to write your own story.
Make the level design up as they go
often when it's your first times with the editor you'll play around with some features. You'll add some units here, some triggers there, also add some terrain. It's not hard to make a map. What differentiates good maps from any other map is the thought process that went in before doing a single thing with the editor. Two ways have been established when designing a map: First is to start with a story and then build gameplay around that Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos has an excellent story and the gameplay also very good but the maps are very similar). Second is to come up with an idea for a map and then make up a story around that (Example: Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Excellent level design with unique elements for each map, but story is lacking focus).
Bonus: If you design a campaign (multi-map project) you should first try to find out where your story is starting and ending and mark a few key moments. Also make sure you know what makes the gameplay of each map unique.
Make terrain first, gameplay later
Of course the terrain is an integral part of the level design, but at the early stage you don't need more than basic blocking (cliffs, and rarely some textures/doodads for guidance). It's important to make the map playable as quickly as possible so you can test your idea, because not every idea that is good on paper feels good when playing. Concentrating on the gameplay without thinking about the terrain allows you to make the necessary changes more quickly (iteratively). Work on the terrain and cinematics when you are finished with the gameplay. Please don't use other peoples' maps without their consent. Please don't use multiplayer maps for scenarios.
Force a specific style of play
Naturally, your map is designed with a specific gameplay idea you want the player to experience. If you focus too much on this idea the gameplay can become very narrow-minded, tutorial-like or misunderstood. Leave some margin for player errors and design your abilities and the level as open as possible. Keep in mind that once a player puts his hands on your map its THEIR map (playfield). Think of your map as LEGO; you design the rules but a player has to choose which suits him best. Just make sure that all options are equally fun. This does not mean that your map should be as open as Skyrim. Even linear missions like Piercing the Shroud have some secret rooms, give the player multiple types of units and abilities and some optional objectives.
Mix tilesets/doodads that don't fit
If you look at any tileset you will realize that is always has a color palette with a limited range of colors and these colors blend together perfectly. Because of that some people feel the need to add more variation; but please, only do that if you are experienced with the textures and doodads you want to use. Don't be that person that mixes ice and fiery craters on a jungle level. Study blizzard maps. Look at the textures and doodads, their purpose and how they were combined to create a natural/manmade look and how each area of a map varies from one another without breaking the color palette. When you have understood the basis you can explore more combinations. In the end it's very important to give each area of your map a distinguishable look, if only to make (camera) navigation around the map more easily.
Make the map too big
This is a problem for people who don't plan enough. Often they choose a specific map size and stick to it throughout development without proper testing if there is too much space. Unecessarilly big maps lead to a lot of downtime with the player experiencing boring/uneventful sections, the AI taking too long to attack a player's base or general pathing problems that have to be fixed. Also the map takes longer than necessary to load. Sometimes maps are too small: Despite the demand for action packed games that keep you on your edge all the time, it is good to have a few moments where players can relax, enjoy the environment or build some tension for an upcoming event. Thankfully the Starcraft 2 editor has a feature to alter the map size even after creating the map.
Remove map border
I don't really understand why some people do this but they increase the playable area to the full size of the map. This leads to players seeing beyond painted terrain, so it destroys immersion.
Make cinematics unskippable
It's much easier to make cinematics skippable compared to Warcraft 3. You only need the "skip this trigger if ESC is pressed" trigger and then another trigger that will clean up the scene, which should be triggered anyway even if the cinematic is played completely. Unskippable cinematics can become frustrating if the player needs to replay a section of the map or if he simply choses to ignore it.
Make cinematics too long
As a gameplay-comes-first guy I prefer maps with a few short cinematics, especially since most cinematics just show a bunch of guys standing around and talking to each other. The Starcraft 2 editor has only limited cinematic capabilities, but you can still order units around, have some basic animations and add a lot special effects and camera movement and even add voice-over. In my opinion you should add these features often while reducing the amount of dialogue as much as possible. As a thumb rule I create map intros and outros with 2-3 minutes in length and interludes with 1-2 minutes. In some rare cases (campaign outro), the cinematic may be as long as 5 minutes.
Make the map too difficult
Making a map very difficulty simply means that the people who tested it either were very good players or (unintentionally) ignored problems with the map. When I design a map the difficulty I play it in usually becomes the hardest difficulty level because I know all the ins and outs of the map. From there on I simply reduce the number of enemies/waves/times. Adding more difficulties needs more testing but I do believe it's best to provide multiple difficulty levels to cater to as many players as possible. If the high difficulty of your map is an actual selling point then it should still be fair. Always let the player understand his mistakes or give him the chance to come back from heavy blow (health-pickups/auto-regenerative health etc.). Add hints on how to overcome a hard challenge before or while the player encounters it.
Spend more time promoting than designing
I used to have this rule of not announcing a project until it was around 50% complete. Then I could be sure that the project was completeable in the foreseeable future and it wouldn't feel like an eternity to other users. Some people create forum threads when they haven't even started a project and only gathered some ideas. Some of these threads are actually quite impressive as the information is presented really well, but it often seems like the people who do this are more interested in the feedback than in the actualy project. Don't be that person that works on a project depending on the feedback he gets. Work on a project because you believe YOU will have fun with it.
I like this. SC2 needs more scenario maps. The only one I disagree with is difficulty. If it's a one-off scenario with no followup missions, then I'm much more likely to have fun by being fully challenged.
Very interesting read, and a great tutorial for aspiring campaign mappers. I remember I used to want to make a campaign, but I decided not to, as the only real reason I'd do it is to make new units & try out different mission elements, rather than tell a story.
On map difficulty, it could go the other way around too, couldn't it? If a map is too easy, players are likely not going to like it either. Also, I've seen many maps that have cheap, usually instant-defeat tricks pulled on you, like "your hero dies when you walk through this normal-looking gate". That's not challenging, it's frustrating. I think the difference between those two should be noted down too.
When I wrote that I thought of that protoss indoor mission in Starcraft 1 where you start with Tassadard and two Zealots. There are a couple of rooms where infested terran spawn and can cripple your army unless you sacrifice a unit/hallucination, but you can't know that/when these infested will appear unless you have encountered them. This lead to a lot of saving and loading. Mass Recall made it worse by making the map very dark.
Other example from a user made map where you control a squad but if you are not exremely careful you lose too much HP with no chance to regain it you'll not survive later in the map.
If I really had to decide between Too Hard and Too Easy I would always go for Too Easy. At least that way you can experience the content, while Too Hard may just be impossible to beat.
But I see (almost) no reason to not offer multiple dificulty Levels to as many people as possible enjoy the map.
That difficulty thing was interesting. I always threw my own experience as the normal setting, but I can see your argument for hard. But as you say in your reply, multiple settings is definitely a good idea, and I've seen it reflected in the ratings of maps. I get better ratings when I have difficulty settings. Though i find it funny that someone will always complain about the hardest difficulty when there are easier ones to choose.
Excellent post. I like this topic. I would like to share some thoughts for it. When it comes to Base defense maps it would be interesting how many ways you could go about to force that perspective and style of play. I usually tend to make these Base defense maps like a Chess games where you must keep the Hero alive to the end otherwise you loss. They get the impossible feeling because how easy it is to loss your hero and how difficult the attack waves but its not hard at all defending once you effectively know how remember chess game is about what you have and where you have it and I really stress this when it come to the End game Boss because the only certain Hero attacks will work because it's invincible to most damage.
Now about the Base defense map I like to make the map little bit bigger then it needs to be so that the spawning attacking units can spawn outside your box of vision on the map so they just don't appear out of no where on screen. For the Base defense map(picture example) I like to have the feeling that you are immersed in the base to the point you get the feeling that the base has hidden mystery's to be uncovered for example hidden minerals and/or gas along with other hidden base stuff that can be done.
When it comes to difficulty it really is within your mind how you perceive how difficult you think it is. In reality its easy but difficult enough that is forces you to play the scenario. The factor of Easy and Hard could just be an 120 second upgrade away. Think about it. I leave it at that for now.
hey this is great! can i put on the CCI page?
This is very good! I find little I agree with!
Although I agree that loading screen text is convenient, I'm too much a fan of show, don't tell to personally recommend it. I made it a deliberate point not to use it, as I rarely feel like reading a wall of text (and yes, these things are often walls). It's not that I hate reading. I mean, I am a student, so I read practically every day. But having characters speak is better, I think, and having them do stuff is even better.
I agree completely. Each of my campaigns have been more planned than the one before, and always better because of it.
I kinda both agree and disagree with this. I personally like to make a lot of terrain before I finish, though I sometimes finish the first part completely and then begin with an opening cinematic, as I find this more inspiring. I certainly see your logic, though, as I've fallen for that trap myself (realizing that something might not work as well as I had planned). Still, I always pull through some way.
SO true! Don't show me the black edge! It looks ridiculous!
This is dependent on quality, I guess. The most talented mapmakers can easily get away with creating very long cinematics, I feel.
Yes! Yes! YES! Some people are too ambitious! I mean, it's nice that they're passionate, and I would never kick someone for that, but every so often a "4th race idea" thread shows up somewhere (not necessarily this site), and I wanna ask, "What's the point?" These threads are always so incredibly long, and never amount to anything. Map-making is hard and difficult work, and some people seriously underestimate that. It's good that people have ideas. But you can't play an idea. The best campaign makers actually carry them out.
@OutsiderXE: Go
I'd like to add one more mistake, and it's one I've made in the past and that could be really useful advice. And that is -
Cluttering your map with too much doodads
In a point of view, it's understandable you don't want to make your terrain all empty, and you also want to add in some immersion. Just painted terrain can be truly be boring as well as too open areas and that're virtually with little to offer can ruin the experience. But then you get to have the other extreme in which you have to shove in just too many doodads like too many grass and trees for forests, or too many rocks for mountains, or custom 'Zerus' cliffs to cover all the cliffs, and suddenly your terrain becomes a mess. Looking at Blizzard's maps, namely those for the campaign, you'll naturally see that they're often open, but not as empty and filled with interesting doodads as well. The multiplayer/match maps are empty because you must spare since people will be fighting with 200/200, but even a scenario map can make a big mistake when you shove in too much doodads in a single area, unless you're planning a boss fight or an installation map - It can be complicated and you can lose yourself around, as well as it'll harm fps rate. Simply put, it's a matter of planning early and eventually learning, as well. If you made that mistake, like I did, it's understandable and eventually you'll find the balance needed between space and detail.
Use maps as containers for content
If you have a big project it is always a good idea to separate content into mods. It makes file and update organization a little harder. It pays of by being scalable in long term
Write too much story first and then start designing
Finishing one aspect of campaign making 100% and then moving on to the next (write story 100% -> paint maps 100% -> play-test 100% etc) will guarantee failure. Some people have the mental stamina to pull through an entire multi level project so this does not apply to everyone.
So: Start with the smallest map size, present dialog using debugger, add units and basic gameplay. Every time you leave the campaign to rest/get bored/have real life events it will be 100% completed. The quality of it might not be so good though :) Then improve where you feel like improving.
Think of Blizzard as a person
Assuming that you can put together a multi level campaign with the Blizzard campaigns as a quality baseline is nuts. Focus, descope, prioritize. You are not 50 people. You are 1.
No comments
Always comment your code and scripts. If you use the scripting tools, put comments in the comment boxes (each trigger, function has one).
No Definition of Done
When is your campaign completed? When people in forums raise you to the skies? When you get a Blizzard job? When people pay money to you for your efforts? When you have at minimum 10 levels of Blizzard quality campaigns?
Not having a clear end-point will drain your resources.
Continue even though you know you are done
You think its quite perfect... but you can always make it more perfect!!! Leave things which are done behind.
Plan for huge item catalogs
Does your game harbor characters, items, potions and upgrades? Each such item will have: images, strings, attributes, custom scripts and data properties, game balancing issues, regression issues. Creating large catalogs of repetitive content is really hard, as in hard and gruesome repetitive work. Keep it simple.
Use Blizzards style of difficulty as baseline
The traditional blizzard way of doing difficulty is to have 5-7 fixed difficulty levels. This makes it tedious to adjust difficulty later on. If you want to raise difficulty across the board in all your levels, do you really want to open all those map files and change the parameters to those functions? Better to keep it in a mod.
Great read for someone that is just starting out like me. Also thank @monkalizer for your input as well :D